On this page
-
Text (3)
-
X [ FourierProudhonLouisthe particles of...
-
« Ie it well to wish thee happy ? Laving...
-
SOCIALISM IN THE QUARTERLIES. The North ...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
I In France The Tributes To Literary Cel...
odour and colour , as seek to transfuse from one language to another the creations of a poet . A good illustration is afforded us by some translations of Tennyson in a recent article in the Revue des Deux Mondes . We will quote a verse or t * o : —
X [ Fourierproudhonlouisthe Particles Of...
X [ FourierProudhonLouis 756 1 & t ) $ Utaitt * Saturday , ^^^¦^^^^^^^^ BM ^ Mi ^^ MaMM ^^ MPP ** " ^^* " ** " *^^^^*^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I — . _ ^« aa ^ V T ^ _ * fU Jl _ T _ . _ .. ! . > .
« Ie It Well To Wish Thee Happy ? Laving...
« Ie it well to wish thee happy ? Laving known meto decline , , . On a range of lower feelings and a narrower heart Yet itSalM > e : thou shalt lower to his level day by day , What is fine within thee growing coarse , to sympathize with clay . " This is faithfully enough rendered : —
•• Dois-ie souhaiter que tu sois heureuse , qu apres m ' avoir connu tu te degrades dans une atmosphere d * affections plus etroite , et de sentimens plus has que les miens , fcourtant cela sera . Tu fabajsseras de jour en jour a son niveau . Ce que e $ t raffind en tot jabrutira pour sympathiser avec la matiire . No one can find fault with that as a translation , but who does not feel the immensity of the abysm between it and the original ? Mark this : — " As the husband is the wife is : thou art mated with a clown , . And the grossness of his nature will have weight to drag thee down . "
Thus rendered : — " Tel mari telle femme . Tu fes alliee a la vulgarite ; elle sera comme un poids pour te courber vera la terre . " Having carefully compared these specimens , and made yourself aware of the inadequacy of the French to create anything of the emotion created by the original , you will , perhaps , be able to understand the reason why Faust in translation seems so inferior to its reputation .
Socialism In The Quarterlies. The North ...
SOCIALISM IN THE QUARTERLIES . The North British Review , No . XXX . Art .: " The Social Science . " Hamilton , Adams , and Co . The British Quarterly Review , No . XXVII . Art .- " Human Piogression ; " and Art .: •• Thoughts on the Labour Question . " Jackson and Walford . Socialism is daily ceasing to be less and less of a word of terror , and becoming more and more an object of philosophic investigation . Men begin to feel that the old stereotyped objections betray feebleness of mind in those who give them vent ; they become ashamed of the traditional twaddle ,
started and repeated by those who had never troubled themselves to investigate the subject ; they withdraw from general circulation the epithets of infamy , and leave it to the high-minded Paris Correspondent of the Times to quote examples of vulgar every-day dishonesty , " as illustrative of Socialist theories . " Socialism is a " great fact . " Be it beneficent or be maleficent—surrounded by airs from heaven or blasts from hell , be its intents wicked or charitable , man must speak to it . Abuse will no longer avail . Arguments must be refuted or accepted .
A / nong the foremost organs of serious opinion we recognize the Reviews named at the bead of this article ; and it has given ua considerable satisfaction to observe the attention they have accorded to the discussion of Social theories , during the last two years . If we select the current numbers for special notice , it is because we wish to bring forward one consideratio ¦ generally overlooked by writers , or . if not overlooked , nevertheless inadequately treated , viz ., that Social Science implies Social Life as an existence superior to all individual existencies ; or , in other words , that there is Humanity , as a living organism , of which human beings are the component parts ; and this Humanity is the object of a science different from all other sciences , though dependent on them .
With hoiik ' , As oeiation or Cooperation is Socialism ; with othe . r » , the " Rational System " of eliminating the soul altogether us a vital force , and acknowledging only the " force of circuin . stauccs , " and Associati n grafted thereon is Socialism ; with otheru . the NatisfncJion of the appetites ; with Others , general spoliation and the tiiuniph of anarchy by means of barricades—all these diverse meanings are attributed to Socialism by men assuming the office of critics and teachers , and do in tome rude way indicate , though in caricature , the diversity of the Socialist Schemes . But as we have often waid , Socialism is not dependent upon Socialist Schemes ; no more than Metaphysics can bo said to be dependent upon any of th «; vanoiiH fcchooln . A Socialist is not de facto a follower of
There is a vague yet powerful sentiment underlying all Socialist speculations , which must be brought forward into the distinctness of a formula . The sentiment we speak of is that of Humanity , of mutual interdependence , of Fraternity . It expresses itself in the word " Cooperation , " as opposed to " Competition "—brotherhood , not antagonism . It expresses itself , also , in the words " nationality , " and " solidarity of the Peoples . "
St . Simon , Owen , , , Blanc , or Kingsley j nor is a Metaphysician necessarily a believer in Locke , Kant , Hume , Reid , or Hegel . The man who believes in the possibility of a science of Metaphysics , and strives in some way to discover its fundamental propositions , is a Metaphysician ; the man who believes in the possibility of Social Science , and strives to discover its laws and applications , is a Socialist . If some Socialists take meagre views of the subject , and imagine that the organization of labour embraces it all , although it embraces but a small section ; so , likewise , do Metaphysicians often confine themselves to one section , and proclaim it paramount .
It is the recognition , dim perhaps , yet forcible , of the sublime conception of Humanity as the living reality of this world—the conception of Society as the highest form of our collective life , which , without destroying individual life , completes it by enabling us to live in others . Against the old egotistic Competitive formula , Each for himself and God for us all , it raises up this nobler formula , Each for himself and for all .
We anticipate the sneer which will pass over some lips at this " mystical notion , " and hasten to assure the reader that it is as scientific a conception as almost any that he may entertain . Sentiment may underlie it , but Science accepts it as a positive generalization . With more or less clearness multitudinous thinkers have indicated it ; and when we state that Auguste Comte makes it the basis of all
social science , we have assured the reader that " mysticism" is the last quality to be predicated of it . The opening article of both the British and North British Reviews is devoted to the explanation of this important topic . In the British Quarterly the views of Human progression , as maintained by Comte , Herbert Spencer , and the anonymous author of The Theory of Human Progression , are set forth and criticized . In the North British
a retrospect is taken of the various attempts at a philosophy of History , and Comte and Herbert Spencer are again discussed . From internal evidence it is pretty clear that the writer of both articles is the same person , and our readers will do well to study both articles together , for they throw light on and complete each other . On some points we are at issue with the Reviewer , and regret that haste or radical distaste for the school to which Herbert Spencer belongs , should have led him into that occasional misrepresentation which any careful reader of Social Statics will observe . His argument against Individualism , or the notion that Social Science is purely the science of individual liberty , we have long held ; but although
we think him right in his polemic against Herbert Spencer , be is very wrong in the supposition that Spencer ignoies the existence of Humanity as the highest development . Society is not merely an aggregation of individuals , but the supreme Organization of which individuals are the members ; in § 16 of the General Considerations ( Social Statics , p . 448 ) there is an elaborate statement of the analogy between Humanity and its individual members and the Man and his individual partsbetween the Body Politic and the Human Bodyto which we refer the Reviewer , although it is not clear to us how Spencer would make this square with the principles of his Social Statics . Having premised this ^ much , we will follow the Reviewer , who in the North British says : —
" I here i * , it appears to us , ( something confusing in the terms in which Mr . Spencer and Mr . Mill state their belief that the phenomena of society are only the manifcstatii > ns of the- human nature of individuals in a state of union . For , though ihe individual human being , an such , in conceivable to iih , und though there are certain sciences which are concern * < 1 with the lavva of purely individual human nature ; yet , in point of fact , the individual human
bei . ni / tit always tlunu / ht of by tot an a main her of suciid / . ihe individual man who in the o'ject of our MiudicH is alwtiys imagined us already existing in social relationship with other men ; ho that many of the phenoiiienu which we set down as those of individual human nature , lire in reality dependent lor their existence on what Mr . Spencer culls the accident ot aocial combination . In short , instcud of representing society ua built up of individuals , we may reverno ViW mode of thought , and represent individuali * as
the decomposed particles of society . In this sense , of course , it is true that the properties of the mass are the combined result of the properties of the particles , seeing that we have already implied in the particles the properties which they derive from belonging to the mass . But if we conceive the particles per se , if we first take for granted about human beings only as much as it is possible for us to conceiv e known about them as individual objects , then it is At > . _ - -S * . _ - ¦ ¦ - — . . Jl a « A « fiillAfl ^ V » f » 4 * 4 M - * ¦ ^ P _ _ ll _ . _ _
not true that the farther knowledge of what would result from the accident of their combination would be a mere work of logical inference . " Were our knowledge of individual human nature in this sense as profound and accurate as it could possibly be , we could no more deduce thence the phenomena of associated human nature without the help of empyrio observation of society than we could tell beforehand , from our knowledge of oxygen and hydrogen separately , that , when combined , they would form water . "
The vulgarest experience will teach us how differently masses of men act from what the same men as individuals would act—as in committees , meetings , regiments , & c . And if men as masses are different from men as individuals , the laws which regulate social life cannot be learned from the isolated study of individuals . Against those who think otherwise the Reviewer finely says : — " The radical fallacy of these , it appears to us , consists in this , that they proceed on the supposition that society has no life , no purpose , no destiny as suchbut is a mere numerical succession of individual
, existences . Hence , fixing his regard on the increase of the happiness of individuals , as the highest conceivable object for which the world can have been created , and having formulized the conditions of this happiness in the principle of equal rights for all , he constructs an ideal of society , whose highest principle is the rule of universal Laissez-faire . The whole problem of the Social ttate is , according to his [ Mr . Spencer ' s ] view , to secure liberty to every individual to do as he pleases , so long as he does not infringe on the liberty of others to do as they please ; and the sole purpose of government is therefore the negative one of repressing crime . Now , our view is , in a
great degree , the reverse of this . Society , as we believe , is not merely a device for the wellbeing of individuals ; it has , we believe , an organic life , an ulterior destination , of its own ; and it may sometimes even happen , we think , as in the case of a general war , that what is good and splendid in the social development , may not coincide with what is immediately beneficial for the individuals concerned in effecting it . Instead , therefore , of subordinating the laws of society to the ascertained personal interests of the individual / we would subordinate the laws of individual action to the ascertained conditions of noble social existence . "
The same fine argument is thus stated in the British Quarterly .- —¦ " The essence of the difference we feel from our authors on this point seems to be , that whereas they view the problem of tho equitable constitution of society as the mere problem of securing to each of the associated individuals exactly as much liberty to do right or wrong at his pleasure as is consistent with the equal liberty of all the others to do rig ht or
wrong at their pleasure ; we , on the other hand , aro disposed to view the problem of the sorial life as a problem of high separate account , the adequate solution of which has this fine condition annexed to it , that it necessarily imposes restrictions on the individual liberty of wrong-doing , additional to lh < so ari-ing from the circumstance , that there are so many claimants of this liberty all living together . In other words , we do not regaul the law of the right constitution of society as identicul with the law of tho
greatest possible individual freedom to do r'ght or wrong ; but we regard this luw of the greatest individual freedom to do right or wrong , as farther conditioned for the individual by the obligation on society , as such , to do right . Hence , were wo to venture on any metaphysical definition of the principle of the rights of men in society , it would be , not that all men should have equal liberty to do right or wrong , but that all men should have equal liberty to do what , is in itself right . This is no mere quibble . It leaves ample kcope for wtill farther extension" the world of ihe piinciple ot sociid liberty ; for n » at > y laws , many customs , many institutions still exist , which restrict the liberty of some classes to do things 01
undeniably right , as compared with thii liberty others to do the same things . And , though i' » ~ journs and complicates almost indelinir < lv , and renders va * tly more dubious and diflieult the pioblem ot the equitable constitution of t-oeicty , seeing 'hat 1 leaves thu great , question , ' What in right ? ' to be still determined , it at tho same time adds nobility « 'ij < glory to that pro ' . lem . It provides , and legi : i " iat <' ly provides , for the eternal continuance in society o kind ol agency , which it is in the nature more especially of Mr . Spencer's interpretation of the theory < sneer at , the agency of personal domination , ° * l j " compulsion of better and greater and more venc'i > * over worse and weaker and younger men . It detain within tho body politic , jib hucIi , tho high aonac o
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 9, 1851, page 16, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_09081851/page/16/
-